Re: [MBONED] Question about multicast address to be used in documentation and example

[Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]>]

So, what happens in that documentation tool when you use
some address from IPv4 multicast admin-scope or link-local scope ?
After all, you will need to be able to use addresses from all different
scopes in examples, because of the example you are trying to make.
eGLOB is just one of these scopes. 

On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 05:21:42PM +0200, Maglione Roberta wrote:
> 
> >>From [e-mail]  Wed Oct 15 08:47:53 2008
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
X-Original-To: [e-mail]
Delivered-To: [e-mail]
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B720228C223;
	Wed, 15 Oct 2008 08:47:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: [e-mail]
Delivered-To: [e-mail]
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 947DF28C223
	for <[e-mail]>; Wed, 15 Oct 2008 08:47:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.587
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.587 tagged_above=-999 required=5
	tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FAKE_REPLY_C=2.012, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
	by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 6TeC9QMD0-WX for <[e-mail]>;
	Wed, 15 Oct 2008 08:47:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-1.cisco.com (sj-iport-1.cisco.com [171.71.176.70])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D660B3A677C
	for <[e-mail]>; Wed, 15 Oct 2008 08:47:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.33,417,1220227200"; d="scan'208";a="91314758"
Received: from sj-dkim-1.cisco.com ([171.71.179.21])
	by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 15 Oct 2008 15:48:30 +0000
Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238])
	by sj-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m9FFmTWw018972; 
	Wed, 15 Oct 2008 08:48:29 -0700
Received: from cisco.com (pita.cisco.com [171.71.177.199])
	by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m9FFmTTY025763;
	Wed, 15 Oct 2008 15:48:29 GMT
Received: (from eckert@localhost)
	by cisco.com (8.8.8-Cisco List Logging/8.8.8) id IAA19706;
	Wed, 15 Oct 2008 08:47:59 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 08:47:59 -0700
From: Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]>
To: Maglione Roberta <[e-mail]>
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=3196; t=1224085709;
	x=1224949709; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim1004;
	h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version;
	d=cisco.com; i=[e-mail];
	z=From:=20Toerless=20Eckert=20<[e-mail]>
	|Subject:=20Re=3A=20[MBONED]=20Question=20about=20multicast
	=20address=20to=20be=20used=20in=20documentation=20and=20exa
	mple |Sender:=20;
	bh=uy9seXkNVauPmmu7M7j4L7MBd13wrWISZCuIqp69tbM=;
	b=u/IQLK0pkx46CW4Fl7vOuBv+rBAxvzHceeFVtIHjGWLCPLCyLFdCduQhm/
	yqPPudS3bJEtwfi35B7ONj1KGyKVAtPso6DVQ7VE3fu6q7z3rSmMMz98ssAz
	H27yLkaUf39Yn1rDmQHx+PC1D85l8XNP5fcMgciPNOOCFdg6IdleM=;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=[e-mail]; dkim=pass (
	sig from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 verified; ); 
Cc: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, Stig Venaas <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [MBONED] Question about multicast address to be used in
	documentation and example
X-BeenThere: [e-mail]
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mail List for the Mboned Working Group <mboned.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned>,
	<mailto:[e-mail]?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/mboned>
List-Post: <mailto:[e-mail]>
List-Help: <mailto:[e-mail]?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned>,
	<mailto:[e-mail]?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]


So, what happens in that documentation tool when you use
some address from IPv4 multicast admin-scope or link-local scope ?
After all, you will need to be able to use addresses from all different
scopes in examples, because of the example you are trying to make.
eGLOB is just one of these scopes. 

On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 05:21:42PM +0200, Maglione Roberta wrote:
> 
> > But I guess assigning a specific multicast prefix would be good,
> >
> >> I suppose it's always helpful if people know that a particular
> >> address is
> >>  reserved for documentation purposes and so cannot be part of a live
> >> configuration.
> >
> 
> > My thinking was that the FIRST such range in eGLOP could be so
> > reserved. Is a /24 sufficient?
> 
> I think /24 would be fine for documentation.
> 
> Thanks,
> Roberta
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marshall Eubanks [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2008 5:05 PM
> To: Leo Vegoda
> Cc: Stig Venaas; Maglione Roberta; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [MBONED] Question about multicast address to be used in documentation and example
> 
> 
> On Oct 15, 2008, at 10:52 AM, Leo Vegoda wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 15/10/2008 4:14, "Stig Venaas" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >>> I checked RFC3330, it proposes an IPv4 range to be used in
> >>> documentation and
> >>> example but only for unicast, I could not find an equivalent range
> >>> for
> >>> multicast. Does this range exist for multicast? Or should I remove
> >>> the
> >>> example from the draft?
> >>
> >> There is a draft draft-ietf-idr-as-documentation-reservation-00.txt
> >> proposing ASNs 64496 - 64511 for documentation. This is only a draft.
> >> But if this is approved, then I guess you could use GLOP addresses
> >> based on those for documentation :)
> >
> > In draft-ietf-mboned-rfc3171bis-03.txt we have marked that portion
> > of the
> > space for extending the AD-HOC range (section 9.2).
> >
> > [...]
> >
> 
> 
> >I think that a /32 would be too small, and inconvenient as well.
> 
> Marshall
> 
> > Regards,
> >
> > Leo
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > MBONED mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned
> 
> 
> 
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
> 
> This message and its attachments are addressed solely to the persons above and may contain confidential information. If you have received the message in error, be informed that any use of the content hereof is prohibited. Please return it immediately to the sender and delete the message. Should you have any questions, please contact us by replying to [e-mail].
> 
>         Thank you
> 
>                                         www.telecomitalia.it
> _______________________________________________
> MBONED mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned

-- 
---
Toerless Eckert, [e-mail]
Cisco NSSTG Systems & Technology Architecture
"The strategy is what you do, not what you write" - Wesley Clark
"Vision without ressources is hallucination" - James L. Jones
_______________________________________________
MBONED mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned


>>> But I guess assigning a specific multicast prefix would be good,
> >
> >> I suppose it's always helpful if people know that a particular
> >> address is
> >>  reserved for documentation purposes and so cannot be part of a live
> >> configuration.
> >
> 
> > My thinking was that the FIRST such range in eGLOP could be so
> > reserved. Is a /24 sufficient?
> 
> I think /24 would be fine for documentation.
> 
> Thanks,
> Roberta
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marshall Eubanks [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2008 5:05 PM
> To: Leo Vegoda
> Cc: Stig Venaas; Maglione Roberta; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [MBONED] Question about multicast address to be used in documentation and example
> 
> 
> On Oct 15, 2008, at 10:52 AM, Leo Vegoda wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 15/10/2008 4:14, "Stig Venaas" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >>> I checked RFC3330, it proposes an IPv4 range to be used in
> >>> documentation and
> >>> example but only for unicast, I could not find an equivalent range
> >>> for
> >>> multicast. Does this range exist for multicast? Or should I remove
> >>> the
> >>> example from the draft?
> >>
> >> There is a draft draft-ietf-idr-as-documentation-reservation-00.txt
> >> proposing ASNs 64496 - 64511 for documentation. This is only a draft.
> >> But if this is approved, then I guess you could use GLOP addresses
> >> based on those for documentation :)
> >
> > In draft-ietf-mboned-rfc3171bis-03.txt we have marked that portion
> > of the
> > space for extending the AD-HOC range (section 9.2).
> >
> > [...]
> >
> 
> 
> >I think that a /32 would be too small, and inconvenient as well.
> 
> Marshall
> 
> > Regards,
> >
> > Leo
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > MBONED mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned
> 
> 
> 
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
> 
> This message and its attachments are addressed solely to the persons above and may contain confidential information. If you have received the message in error, be informed that any use of the content hereof is prohibited. Please return it immediately to the sender and delete the message. Should you have any questions, please contact us by replying to [e-mail].
> 
>         Thank you
> 
>                                         www.telecomitalia.it
> _______________________________________________
> MBONED mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned

-- 
---
Toerless Eckert, [e-mail]
Cisco NSSTG Systems & Technology Architecture
"The strategy is what you do, not what you write" - Wesley Clark
"Vision without ressources is hallucination" - James L. Jones
_______________________________________________
MBONED mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned